Skip to comments.
Antarctic Craters Reveal Strike
BBC ^
| 8-23-2004
Posted on 08/23/2004 6:58:34 AM PDT by blam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
1
posted on
08/23/2004 6:58:35 AM PDT
by
blam
To: SunkenCiv; RightWhale
2
posted on
08/23/2004 6:59:27 AM PDT
by
blam
To: blam
The asteroid may have raised sea levels by up to 60cm It's Bush's fault!
To: blam
We need more money to build the Antarctic Asteroid Deflection System.
NOW!
4
posted on
08/23/2004 7:02:38 AM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: blam
Blah blah blah blah blah...
Since the earth is only about 10,000 years old, I love these liberal dating methods claimed as "fact"
5
posted on
08/23/2004 7:04:41 AM PDT
by
HawkeyeLonewolf
(Christian First, American Second (Conservative Anti-Smoker))
To: blam
The impact area is still emitting ions that are captured by atmospheric ozone molecules thus the hole in the ozone layer.
The emission rate is variable and the reason has not yet determined. The best way to measure the emission variation is to measure the ozone hole.
6
posted on
08/23/2004 7:06:09 AM PDT
by
bert
(Peace is only halftime !)
To: blam
When the impacts hit, they would have melted through the ice and through the crust below.
The sorry state of journalism.
7
posted on
08/23/2004 7:07:19 AM PDT
by
aruanan
To: HawkeyeLonewolf
Since the earth is only about 10,000 years old, I love these liberal dating methods claimed as "fact"
For whichever reason you're saying this: poor child.
8
posted on
08/23/2004 7:08:51 AM PDT
by
aruanan
To: HawkeyeLonewolf
Since the earth is only about 10,000 years old, I love these liberal dating methods claimed as "fact" You're wrong. The earth isn't 10,000 years old. It was created last Thursday and all the evidence to the contrary is just a practical joke by the Creator.
9
posted on
08/23/2004 7:08:55 AM PDT
by
Modernman
(Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.)
To: aruanan
For whichever reason you're saying this: poor child. Just going with science, not the fanciful belief systems of Anti-God pseudo-scientists.
10
posted on
08/23/2004 7:10:30 AM PDT
by
HawkeyeLonewolf
(Christian First, American Second (Conservative Anti-Smoker))
To: All
11
posted on
08/23/2004 7:16:33 AM PDT
by
HawkeyeLonewolf
(Christian First, American Second (Conservative Anti-Smoker))
To: blam
Too bad they don't have a map of the crater to show, I'd like to see it.
12
posted on
08/23/2004 7:18:09 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(If a tree fell on a mime in the forest, would he still taste like chicken?)
To: All
13
posted on
08/23/2004 7:21:20 AM PDT
by
HawkeyeLonewolf
(Christian First, American Second (Conservative Anti-Smoker))
To: blam
...even tidal waves would have been weakened by the stabilising effect of icebergs on the ocean.I had no idea that icebergs had a stabilizing effect on the ocean. I don't believe it.
14
posted on
08/23/2004 7:21:28 AM PDT
by
Ol' Sox
(Isa u Akbar)
To: HawkeyeLonewolf
Ah, Answers in Genesis. How many times do we have to discredit that site before you creos stop relying on it as an authority?
Anyway, I'm still sticking by my belief that the Earth was created last Thursday. It's no whackier than your view.
15
posted on
08/23/2004 7:31:40 AM PDT
by
Modernman
(Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.)
To: Ol' Sox
I had no idea that icebergs had a stabilizing effect on the ocean. I don't believe it.
Remember, this is about damping out waves. When the wave hits the iceberg, part of it reflects directly, and part of the energy is consumed lifting the iceberg which - when it comes back down - creates more waves headed back in the reverse direction. Net effect: The original incident wave is diminished. Do it enough times (like, in an ice ace when there are lots of icebergs) and a single massive wave becomes a lesser wave and lots of return waves.
If there's enough ice to make a solid ice sheet on the water, then even more energy is consumed breaking that ice sheet to lift the ice as the wave passes.
How significant it would be overall is unclear, but the incremental effect is not hard to understand.
16
posted on
08/23/2004 7:35:41 AM PDT
by
Gorjus
To: Modernman
What have you disproven from their site? So far, good honest science wins out.
17
posted on
08/23/2004 7:35:46 AM PDT
by
HawkeyeLonewolf
(Christian First, American Second (Conservative Anti-Smoker))
To: blam
I guess fluffy snow softened the blow.
18
posted on
08/23/2004 7:36:54 AM PDT
by
Lockbar
(Worried about lead poisoning? Then stop eating the paint chips, Dummy!)
To: HawkeyeLonewolf
who knows how long a year was in the beginning???
19
posted on
08/23/2004 7:42:49 AM PDT
by
camas
To: HawkeyeLonewolf
What have you disproven from their site? So far, good honest science wins out. That site has been hashed out on literally dozens of FR threads. It really has no credibility here, not even with most creationists.
20
posted on
08/23/2004 7:43:18 AM PDT
by
Modernman
(Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson